Sonoma County Vintners Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 680175790
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2022–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-PF 2021
- Location
- Santa Rosa, CA, USA
- Phone
- 7075225844
- Rating
- 65
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Fund Raising and Fund Distribution
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,353,747
- Expenses
- $1,428,906
- Assets
- $2,118,484
- Liabilities
- $429,523
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
18 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MARK MALPIEDE (PRESIDENT)
- MIKE HANEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- MIKE HANEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $190,120 total reported compensation
- BARBARA COX (DIRECTOR OF MARKETING AND): $144,646 total reported compensation
- DANA MACAULAY (AUCTIONS MANAGING DIRECTOR): $143,296 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Sonoma county vintners foundation conducts and supports education programs related to the wine industry.
What it reported doing in 2024
Sonoma county vintners foundation (the "foundation") provides support to the local community through philanthropy and charitable giving. Sonoma county vintners foundation (scvf) is an accredited 501c(3) nonprofit organization founded in 1988. Its purpose is to consistently support local nonprofit organizations that address issues within the sonoma county community. Scvf cultivates a vibrant and diverse sonoma county by elevating lives through charitable events and philanthropic giving. Fundraising efforts have a direct impact in the areas of education & literacy, health & human services, the environment, and arts & culture.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 42% for direct work, and 58% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 54
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 37
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 62.9%; rating input score 63
- Program expense ratio: 57.1%; rating input score 57
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -5.6%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.48; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.7%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -16.2% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 11.7% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -2.8% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 62.9% of revenue deployed · 57.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $815K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $190K · 18 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 136 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 42 filed related-organization links
- Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
- People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.